Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Aren't these for the people who cross the border and want to wait for an immigration hearing? They weren't dragged to pushed across the border. Sure there's economic pressures at work. I bet if you were to walk up to the guards at a crossing and ask to enter you don't get thrown into a camp.

The mistake you are making is comparing the alpha version to the final release. They didn't start out as death camps.
Others pointed out months ago how the pattern is mirroring Nazi Germany, the ramping up of racist rhetoric, then the switch in language to dehumanise your chosen scapegoats. Now they are rounding people up and taking them away without proper paperwork or procedure and locking them up in inhumane conditions.

We're supposed to learn from that dark period of history, spot the signs early and nip it hard in the bud. Instead people are dismissing it as "propaganda" (When they aren't just outright cheering it.)

It looks very much like you're at the beginning of the "They took away all the ___ and I did nothing because I wasn't a ____" Stage.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

With all respect, none of these idiots (authors) were ever in a concentration camp.
My grandfather has.

Yeah, but you, just like all these authors, weren’t. So where does that leave you in the debate? Nowhere. What concerns me is all that all the talk about how some people choose to name these facilities has completely displaced the actual substance of the debate. (And this is the main reason why I wouldn’t call them concentration camps, that name would distract from the real issues.) And the conditions are horrific, inhumane and not worthy of a country like the US. You don’t need to make any historical comparisons to understand this.

Moments after Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson took his first tour of a southern Arizona detention facility housing about 900 migrant children in makeshift cages Wednesday, he had a message for Central American parents who are on the brink of sending their children illegally and alone into the United States.
"This journey is a dangerous one, and at the end of it there is no free pass," he said. "There are no permisos for children, for your children, who come to the United States. The journey from Central America into south Texas is over a thousand miles long. It is hot. It is treacherous and you are placing your child in the hands of a criminal smuggling organization. It is not safe."

On Fox News Sunday, former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said that under the Barack Obama administration, they did detain some children alone and some families together, two policies for which Donald Trump has been widely blamed.

Johnson told host Chris Wallace that they "thought it was necessary at the time," and that it is still is.

"Without a doubt the images, and the reality, from 2014, just like 2018, are not pretty," Johnson said. "We expanded it, I freely admit it was controversial, we believed it was necessary at the time, I still believe it is necessary to remain a certain capability for families."

WALLACE: I want to talk to about some specifics. I’m not playing the political blame game, I’m talking about issues and one of them the president says in the Trump administration part of the problem is a measure that was written by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein in 2008 that became law. If a minor, an unaccompanied minor or child comes across the border from Mexico or Canada, we can send them immediately back to their country, but under the Feinstein amendment, if it's a noncontiguous country like Central America, not right on our border, they can't be sent back immediately.

Hasn't that contributed especially to the spike in unaccompanied minors coming into this country over the last few years?

JOHNSON: Chris, what you’re referring to is the TVPRA passed in 2008 and as you pointed out, it does say that an unaccompanied child from Central America, noncontiguous country, cannot be sent back immediately. Now, there's a certain amount of common sense behind that because you can't just simply send an unaccompanied child back across the southern border into Mexico. You cannot repatriate a Guatemalan to Mexico.

And so, that law, which has a certain level of protections for children. We are talking about unaccompanied children, 5 and 6-year-old kids. It requires that the Department of Homeland Security place that child with HHS within 48 hours. A deportation proceeding is commenced and the child has a right through a lawyer to assert a claim for asylum.

The interim rule, which will be published in the Federal Register July 16, will require that anyone seeking asylum at the United States’ southern border must have first applied and been rejected for asylum in any third country they have travelled through. The rule is set to go into effect on Tuesday.

The change in policy means that a person fleeing - for example - Guatemala, who traveled through Mexico before presenting themselves at a legal port of entry into the United States, would first have to claim and be rejected for asylum in Mexico in order to be eligible to claim asylum in the United States.

The new rule brings asylum policy along the southern border in line with current policy along the northern border with Canada. Under the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement, enacted in 2004, a person must make a claim for asylum in either the United States or Canada, depending on where they arrive first. A similar policy, the Dublin Regulation, exists in the European Union.

If I wasn’t there personally, then the account is discounted and worthless ?

That was your argument, you literally wrote:

Originally Posted by turtle777

With all respect, none of these idiots (authors) were ever in a concentration camp.
My grandfather has.

A lot of the people who are of a different opinion than you have also had family members in (Nazi) concentration camps. You discounted their opinion on the basis that they themselves haven't had the experience. And I am just pointing out that you don't either. Just to be clear, I think it is fair to criticize the choice of words, also on historical grounds. But your argument in that regard is self-defeating.

In either case, where do you stand on the substance of the problems, i. e. the actual conditions in these facilities where the asylum seekers are being housed? How does your opinion relate to your family history?

You mean the centers built during the Obama administration?
Jeh Johnson tours one here in Arizona

Why do you misdirect attention to the Obama administration? The facilities are overcrowded, i. e. filled way beyond the capacity they had been designed for. Children are being separated from their parents, and in many cases tracking is so lackluster that re-uniting children with their parents might be next to impossible. Where do you stand on that? Do you think this is the right, the moral thing to do, to house asylum seekers like that?

Why do you misdirect attention to the Obama administration? The facilities are overcrowded, i. e. filled way beyond the capacity they had been designed for. Children are being separated from their parents, and in many cases tracking is so lackluster that re-uniting children with their parents might be next to impossible. Where do you stand on that? Do you think this is the right, the moral thing to do, to house asylum seekers like that?

The separation of children and their alleged parents predates Pres Trump and is a result of the Flores V Reno decision. The Feinstein amendment made this worse.

Until the asylum process is streamlined, and it can be be determined that parent and child are in fact parent(s) and child(ren), unfortunately yes, it moral thing to do.

The separation of children and their alleged parents predates Pres Trump and is a result of the Flores V Reno decision. The Feinstein amendment made this worse.

I think you are ignoring the marked increase in enforcement under President Trump.

Originally Posted by Chongo

Until the asylum process is streamlined, and it can be be determined that parent and child are in fact parent(s) and child(ren), unfortunately yes, it moral thing to do.

Why do children have to be separated from parents until that is determined? Is ICE really running DNA tests to verify that? Why are procedures acceptable that have made it practically impossible for thousands of parents to be reunited with their children? Why is it morally acceptable that asylum seekers have to stay in overcrowded facilities without basic hygiene?

I think you are ignoring the marked increase in enforcement under President Trump.

Why do children have to be separated from parents until that is determined? Is ICE really running DNA tests to verify that? Why are procedures acceptable that have made it practically impossible for thousands of parents to be reunited with their children? Why is it morally acceptable that asylum seekers have to stay in overcrowded facilities without basic hygiene?

In 2015, US District Judge Dolly Gee ruled that Flores requirements apply to both unaccompanied minors and children apprehended with their parents. This means that all minors must be released from detention if possible, Meissner said.

There is a 20 day limit. The Trump administration applied to have that modified, but the court refused.

Why do you misdirect attention to the Obama administration? The facilities are overcrowded, i. e. filled way beyond the capacity they had been designed for. Children are being separated from their parents, and in many cases tracking is so lackluster that re-uniting children with their parents might be next to impossible. Where do you stand on that? Do you think this is the right, the moral thing to do, to house asylum seekers like that?

Chongo sticks to Chongo's worldview no matter what. And Chongo's worldview says anything the Republicans do is just fine.

The misdirect is supposed to imply that "us liberals" are just as complicit in this depravity as the conservatives are but of course there's a huge chance these places were nowhere near as bad as they are today and even if they were, we didn't know about it. If we did, we'd have been just as shocked and outraged and not made excuses or cheered for it.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Chongo sticks to Chongo's worldview no matter what. And Chongo's worldview says anything the Republicans do is just fine.

The misdirect is supposed to imply that "us liberals" are just as complicit in this depravity as the conservatives are but of course there's a huge chance these places were nowhere near as bad as they are today and even if they were, we didn't know about it. If we did, we'd have been just as shocked and outraged and not made excuses or cheered for it.

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Jul 16, 2019, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Chongo sticks to Chongo's worldview no matter what. And Chongo's worldview says anything the Republicans do is just fine.

The misdirect is supposed to imply that "us liberals" are just as complicit in this depravity as the conservatives are but of course there's a huge chance these places were nowhere near as bad as they are today and even if they were, we didn't know about it. If we did, we'd have been just as shocked and outraged and not made excuses or cheered for it.

With the rise of Trump, Republicans can no longer claim the moral high ground. With W, they had a "good," "Christian" leader who was doing what was "morally right." They felt very very superior.

Then they spent 8 years absolutely blasting Obama for every perceived slight, weakness, and indignity, lamenting the downfall of American values.

But now that Trump's the president, now that he's not ashamed to be a horrible person, and now that Republicans are not ashamed to openly support him, they can no longer claim the moral high ground.

So the next best things is to claim that "both sides are the same." Both sides are just as bad. Point out something horrendous the Republicans are doing right now? Well let me point you to this barely-tangentially-related policy that Obama supported. See? Both sides are the same.

Trump ratcheted up border internments? Well Obama started it. Trump initiates significant ICE activity and mass deportations? Obama was the DEPORTER IN CHIEF. Trump has multiple credible accusations of sexual assault? Well how 'bout this video of creepy uncle Biden giving a backrub. Trump has a history of attracting the support of white nationalists and Nazis? Well Lincoln was a republican!!

It's the last thing they have. Their shitty behavior is fully, 100% out there, so all they can do is try and drag the other side down as well.

You're ignoring my answer. Reno V Flores mandates that children be kept no more than 20 days. A later court ruling expanded that to include those who arrived with people claiming to be parents. The Trump administration tried to get that changed, but that same judge said no.

I think you are ignoring the marked increase in enforcement under President Trump.

I think youre ignoring the marked increase in “caravans” etc under Trump. Nobody want these people. It would be one thing if they really were the hard working contributing people liberals romanticize them to be, but they aren't. Democrats dont want these people, as seen by fighting against Trump sending them to their cities. Everyone used to be on the same page with this. Dems only pretend to be pro immigrant now, to be anti trump. Just like with the whole Putin thing... pro Putin when hes making dirty deals with Obama, anti Putin when Trump does similar but less serious offenses than Obama. Just like how dems are against Trump policy that will distance the US from trading with the slave driving country of China, because ya know... that will make the dems stock go down...

Maybe we can send all these “asylum seekers” to Germany, Japan & UK? And yall can raise taxes on everyone to finance determining whether theyre legit or just scammers trying to take advantage of a 1st world nation’s handout programs. Or in Germany’s & UK’s case, 2nd world countries

Why do children have to be separated from parents until that is determined? Is ICE really running DNA tests to verify that? Why are procedures acceptable that have made it practically impossible for thousands of parents to be reunited with their children? Why is it morally acceptable that asylum seekers have to stay in overcrowded facilities without basic hygiene?

They dont have to. Asylum seekers can leave with their kids any time they want, theyll just lose their position in line. If theyre actually being detained then it means they are suspect of criminal activity. “Asylum!” is not a get out of jail free card after you've been caught.

You're ignoring my answer. Reno V Flores mandates that children be kept no more than 20 days. A later court ruling expanded that to include those who arrived with people claiming to be parents. The Trump administration tried to get that changed, but that same judge said no.

I think youre ignoring the marked increase in “caravans” etc under Trump.

No, I am not. Germany didn’t put migrants in cages or separated kids from their parents. And the influx in 2015 was much larger than what is happening at the Southern border in the US.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Nobody want these people. It would be one thing if they really were the hard working contributing people liberals romanticize them to be, but they aren't.

People who are willing to risk their lives to have a shot at a better life are always amongst the most ambitious and hard working.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Maybe we can send all these “asylum seekers” to Germany, Japan & UK? And yall can raise taxes on everyone to finance determining whether theyre legit or just scammers trying to take advantage of a 1st world nation’s handout programs. Or in Germany’s & UK’s case, 2nd world countries

Germany’s economy is doing very well, and is increasing immigration to fill positions in e. g. care work. Germany also has a balanced budget, despite 1+ million migrants being in the country.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

They dont have to. Asylum seekers can leave with their kids any time they want, theyll just lose their position in line. If theyre actually being detained then it means they are suspect of criminal activity. “Asylum!” is not a get out of jail free card after you've been caught.

Putting people in cages is less humane, more expensive and less efficient than registering them and having them show up for a court date. And no, they are not being detained, because of suspected criminal activity. These asylum seekers are in fact fully sticking to US law when they ask for asylum after having entered the US. If you don’t like that bit of US law, lobby for a change.

Theres something weird about the world. No matter how much it starts to resemble the early stages of the most awful period of human history repeating, no matter how little I think of the players causing it, even as someone calling attention to the parallels my brain still doesn't really believe things can possibly get that bad again. Its like I do believe it and I don't at the same time. I can only assume most other people just plain don't. They're so used to everything staying pretty much the same, and everything being mostly ok, no-one can really believe that western society can fall that hard.
Do you think people felt that way last time around? They can't have given the biggest war in history was well within living memory. If they still didn't have the sense to avoid the second one what chance do we really have?

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Do you think people felt that way last time around? They can't have given the biggest war in history was well within living memory. If they still didn't have the sense to avoid the second one what chance do we really have?

Well, remember that WWI wasn't brought about by the rise of fascism or any other such regime. It was largely brought about by a tangle of alliances and royal relationships that were toppled like dominoes by an assassin's bullet (well, that's the cliff notes version. go listen to hardcore history for a deep dive into the reasons) The lessons the survivors of WWI would have learned would not have warned them about fascism. The end results of that conflict, though, did create a social and economic environment ripe for the rise of fascism.

The prosecution of the war also helped give rise to the focused use of "the other" as an organized propaganda tool, which quickly became a central part of the fascist message. But, as I said, this was all new to people. There was no history for them to reflect back on and heed its warnings. They could only try to make sense of what was happening before their eyes in real time.

I don't think it's a coincidence that we're seeing the rise of troubling similarities worldwide today that seem to echo movements of the post WWI world, just as the generation of people who fought against fascism have largely died off. We're quickly losing the voices of the people who know first-hand why it's vital we not let that happen ever again.

Theres something weird about the world. No matter how much it starts to resemble the early stages of the most awful period of human history repeating, no matter how little I think of the players causing it, even as someone calling attention to the parallels my brain still doesn't really believe things can possibly get that bad again. Its like I do believe it and I don't at the same time. I can only assume most other people just plain don't. They're so used to everything staying pretty much the same, and everything being mostly ok, no-one can really believe that western society can fall that hard.
Do you think people felt that way last time around? They can't have given the biggest war in history was well within living memory. If they still didn't have the sense to avoid the second one what chance do we really have?

I too feel this same way about the rise of the socialist movement. It does seem people never permanently learn the lessons of the most awful periods in human history.

But for those who understand evolution, killing people is nothing new at any time in history. The trait humanity is more adapted at than any other, is the ability to kill each other very efficiently. And to this day society continues investing most our resources in finding ever more efficient ways to kill more people.

Theres nothing new under the sun whats happened before will happen again

Ooo, one of my favorite lines that the conservative think tanks came up with to scare people.
"They were called the Nazi SOCIALIST Party, so it was definitely socialism. The Nazis were leftists!"

It's called "national SOCIALISM" actually, a type of Nazism or fascism that didnt denounce power-to-the-people, socialist, movement, but the same in all other regards. China is national socialism.
I was thinking more along the lines of how he mentioned "the most awful period in history repeating"; it reminded me of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Venezuela & every other examples of the socialist movement which genocidally wiped out more people than Hitler & caused longer lasting or possibly permanent damage. Socialism makes Nazis look like kittens, but it's understandable all liberals compare to is nazis as their goto bogeyman despite most never actually seeing a real nazi in their entire life, because it's the only bogeyman they were indoctrinated with in elementary school.

In the US, fascism is Leftist. In Europe it's Right. Fascism (aka all controlling, structured, ordered, regulations) is a big government philosophy, big government philosophies go on the left in the USA. Right means basing political philosophy on older traditional government. Left means novel ideas, power to the people. In US the farther back you go the more individual freedom you have, the smaller less controlling government is, in all respects. Fascism, which denounces individualism, is completely incompatible with American small government conservatism. In Europe the farther back you go the more involved in our lives, dictating, less democratic, controlling, government was, think monarchies, or empires. Fascisms' on the right in Europe because it resembles those old governments. Fascism is anti capitalist. & the state usually dictates wages.
It's important to understand right vs left were originally to describe European politics. They dont fit the same in US.

On racism. No more racism has been found in fascism than any other form of government. The Soviets were pure Left, & they were just as racist, but to different groups. Every country & tribe has a history of racism & genocide. The inventor of fascism believed race was mostly a cultural trait. He based racism on skin color too, which he 1st discriminated against by the accomplishments of their society or lack thereof. He didnt believe in a pure race.

Fascism is against religion. Like socialism, fascism wants to be the only religion. Mussolini & Hitler both tried to eliminate the Judaism & the Catholic church. They played careful chess here because Catholics were the majority. The religion had to be eliminated unnoticeably slow starting with rhetoric, similar to Judaism.

Nationalism. American SJW think tanks assert that nationalism only exists in fascism. But nationalism is historically a natural part of all nations & tribes. The soviets were nationalist. China & North Korea are nationalist. Actually almost every country is more nationalist than the US & a few European countries. Therefore "Nationalism" is no barometer for anything.

Every country who believes in colonialism or empire building is called fascist. But this is actually natural throughout history, nothing to do with fascism. Socialist nations do it too.

In all instances that I can think, fascism gained power as a backlash to socialist movements & the failures, inefficiencies, chaos, that socialism brought to societies. So if you all truly fear fascism, you should start by crushing the hyper progressive socialist movement. All in all fascism has more in common with the American left than right. It only despises the egalitarian parts of socialism, & trade unions etc.. The only times fascism crosses with Republicans is when they support regs that favor specific corporate elites or government over individualism, or try to insert government in the womb. But at the end of the day this is against the core belief of conservatism and is considered leftist policy on the republican's part.

So what would the US technically be, fascist because we're all controlling regulating every aspect of life & we've regulated most the jobs out of the country? Or leftist because we've have an obsession with underdogs & propelling underdogs to the top even if they're an underdog due to the fact they're a lazy unintelligent loser?

Yes, and we're naive enough to believe that North Korea is democratic too, right?

Kinda like Sanders being a "Democratic Socialist"? Perhaps someone should run as a democratic nazi to show how silly it is. You know, not the bad kind of nazi, the good one, the democratic one.

No, I am not. Germany didn’t put migrants in cages or separated kids from their parents. And the influx in 2015 was much larger than what is happening at the Southern border in the US.

Yet Germany is still dealing with the same criticisms about concentration camps, or "AnKER Centers". Germany's refugees show their appreciation by ridiculing Germany the same as they are the US. Damned if you do damned if you dont, so why not just keep doing like we are?Asylum-seekers left in 'inhumane' conditions in German refugee

Im not sure I believe it's 'much larger when we take multiple years into account. Our refugees just keep coming, for decades, and there's no war over here to run from. It's costing our system. And they DO collect free healthcare, free education, welfare & food credits despite it being illegal. Our system has always been pretty easy to scam, by design.

People who are willing to risk their lives to have a shot at a better life are always amongst the most ambitious and hard working.

Risk of any kind, would be staying in their country & fighting to build it up & make it better. Instead they're taking the less riskier route, & running away. Keep in mind there is no war in these countries, they're 'claiming to run away with excuses such as their family members are abusive & other stuff that mostly cant be proven.

Germany’s economy is doing very well, and is increasing immigration to fill positions in e. g. care work. Germany also has a balanced budget, despite 1+ million migrants being in the country.

Putting people in cages is less humane, more expensive and less efficient than registering them and having them show up for a court date.

Meanwhile Germany is also detaining people until they're processed, not just giving them all a court date.

And no, they are not being detained, because of suspected criminal activity. These asylum seekers are in fact fully sticking to US law when they ask for asylum after having entered the US. If you don’t like that bit of US law, lobby for a change.

Are you saying it's not illegal to cross the border evading check points? Im pretty sure I'd be arrested for that if caught. If you're caught in the act of a crime you go to jail. You dont get to yell "asylum" as a diplomatic immunity get out of jail free card only once you're caught trying to avoid the process altogether. They can plea asylum if they turn themselves in on their own free will within a year of being illegal. But thats not the ones we're talking about.

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Jul 26, 2019, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

American small government conservatism.

That's not a thing. Some people think that's a thing, but it's not a thing.

But nationalism is historically a natural part of all nations & tribes...
But this is actually natural throughout history

Natural != good

The soviets were nationalist. China & North Korea are nationalist. Actually almost every country is more nationalist than the US & a few European countries. Therefore "Nationalism" is no barometer for anything.

You say that as though it's something you've measured. And as thought it's okay for some people to be pieces of shit as long as there are other pieces of shit out there.

The only times fascism crosses with Republicans is when they support regs that favor specific corporate elites or government over individualism, or try to insert government in the womb.

What about when Republicans try and place the blame for all of society's problems on an "other" out-group, and dehumanize that group?

But what do YOU personally think in your own words OAW as someone who's read political science texts & researched the philosophy a little. Many of us these days arent really interested in the fascist anti free speech leftists using “fascism” as just a label for everything they disagree with.

(
Last edited by el chupacabra; Jul 27, 2019 at 12:00 PM.
)

the largest problem for Americans today is they eat too much food and dont have enough work to do to keep their heart healthy

Its not that the left is anti free speech, its that they are anti shitty speech. Shitty speech that leads to fascism. Via what we have now. Its difficult to comprehend how someone can complain about the impingement of free speech which isn't actually being impinged while supporting an obviously protofascist regime.

Free speech is only really important for stopping this kind of thing from happening but it also plays an integral part in enabling it.
Given that Trump has already proven the US right doesn't really care about anything they actively claim to care about, why should we believe that their obsession with free speech is any more genuine than their championing of religion, morality, social conservatism etc etc? More likely they just value it for spreading their self serving propaganda.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Its not that the left is anti free speech, its that they are anti shitty speech. Shitty speech that leads to fascism.

So leftists are trying to shut down Jordan Peterson because he engages in shitty speech that leads to fascism? Or because it threatens their Marxist agenda?

Its difficult to comprehend how someone can complain about the impingement of free speech which isn't actually being impinged while supporting an obviously protofascist regime.

I didnt vote for Trump, wont vote for him 2020. Just saying this isnt fascism. The good thing about Trump is his trade war with China. No other republican (and surly no evil democrat) will take this on, which means anyone who supports breaking away from tyrannical China's TRULY FASCIST human rights violations must support Trump. If it were me I'd cease the wall & move all US manufacturing/trade out of Asia & into Mexico.

So far nobody in the thread has shown anything that is fascist. Rebranding prisons & detention centers which have always been around, as "concentration camps" doesn't cut it. You guys have succumbed to marketing rhetoric. In the 1990's and earlier the US just shot most the people who they caught crossing the border illegally, and nobody called it fascism. Now days the US catches them, detains them, & you call it fascism.

Again US used to just shoot these people despite fake news not covering it. My family lives near the border, I know how it works. Mexico government even forces many of their released criminals to live within 20 miles of US border as a dangling carrot in hopes that they'll leave Mexico. Dumb Californian arm chair intellectual know it alls who've not spent time there have not a clue about any of the politics or economics of the border.

Free speech is only really important for stopping this kind of thing from happening but it also plays an integral part in enabling it.
Given that Trump has already proven the US right doesn't really care about anything they actively claim to care about, why should we believe that their obsession with free speech is any more genuine than their championing of religion, morality, social conservatism etc etc?

Being on a hypocritical moral high ground isnt unique to the right (the left is more guilty). It's just that right & left cant agree on whats moral because morals are a purely relative social construct which classically has been based on religion.

There are other things right cares about too which were too politically incorrect for other republican leaders to address, like immigration. Hispanics used to overwhelmingly vote Republican (before Obama), yet Hispanics are the primary illegal immigrants in the US, and Republicans constituents happen to be passionately against illegal immigration. So there is a disconnect between republican constituents and republican leaders who are vying for the most votes possible. Trump's election was a backlash against the republican establishment. All the right could find was a hammer so thats what they used, despite that a hammer tends to further break many of the problems it's trying to fix. Trump has tried at what his constituents asked, like cutting entitlement programs. He has made enemies with many on the right in the process. Between deporting the husbands/wives of republicans or killing jobs, it will really say a lot about the insane disconnection from reality if the democrats cant figure out how to beat him 2020. If they keep on pushing further marxist they will surely lose.

Yet Germany is still dealing with the same criticisms about concentration camps, or "AnKER Centers". Germany's refugees show their appreciation by ridiculing Germany the same as they are the US. Damned if you do damned if you dont, so why not just keep doing like we are?Asylum-seekers left in 'inhumane' conditions in German refugee

I am glad to hear you criticize these kinds of facilities. Indeed, I am against Anker Centers, and think it would be better if refugees were settled in regular houses and become part of German society.

However, I don‘t think the comparison between the German and US facilities is disingenuous: German facilities are like well-run prisons prisons, with showers, running hot water, several meals per day and medical care. None of them look like interment camps run by a third-world country.

Of course, while the conditions are better, my government is still needlessly limiting the freedom of innocent people who are making use of a right that has been enshrined in the German constitution. And I strongly oppose this, we should do better than this. (I can really go on a long rant here.)

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Im not sure I believe it's 'much larger when we take multiple years into account. Our refugees just keep coming, for decades, and there's no war over here to run from. It's costing our system. And they DO collect free healthcare, free education, welfare & food credits despite it being illegal. Our system has always been pretty easy to scam, by design.

You give people shelter, health care and education, because it is the right thing to do. Immigrants don‘t have to prove that they deserve it.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Risk of any kind, would be staying in their country & fighting to build it up & make it better. Instead they're taking the less riskier route, & running away. Keep in mind there is no war in these countries, they're 'claiming to run away with excuses such as their family members are abusive & other stuff that mostly cant be proven.

I think you should not subscribe to all the FUD. In my lifetime Germany has had three to four waves of migration that were comparable in size: around the fall of the iron curtain (which was significantly larger than the number of immigrants who came around 2015), the second caused by the war in former Yugoslavia and the third one now. During the first two there were similar temporary problems, but now nobody remembers those. Instead, children who arrived during these times literally became classmates of mine, graduated university and became e. g. teachers and triathletes. The same will happen to a sizable share of people who came to Germany circa 2015.

There are problems to be solved*, yeah, but nowadays immigration is not close to being the most important issue in the last elections, that was climate change. (Indeed, during the election of the European Parliament and in Bavaria, the conservatives lost big time, because they put everything on black (immigration).

* To name one very boring one: Germany has a very, very strong federal system. Social services are to be paid for by the municipalities. However, these systems have not been designed to account for such a huge influx of people, especially ones that initially do not pay taxes, because they are not allowed to work legally.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

Are you saying it's not illegal to cross the border evading check points? Im pretty sure I'd be arrested for that if caught.

Have a look at US law: [url=https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-u-s-asylum-process/]you can only ask for asylum either from inside the United States or at a port of entry. You cannot ask for asylum at, say, a US embassy in a foreign country. So yes, what these asylum seekers are doing is not just entirely legal, it is one of two ways explicitly stipulated in US law. If you don‘t like this, you should lobby for this law to be changed.

Insisting on jailing people is not just inhumane and needless, it is also significantly more expensive.